Bay Area takes on 'progressive' anti-Semitism

Three years ago, Jonathan Bernstein received an e-mail from a distraught political activist in the San Francisco Bay Area concerned about rising anti-Semitism among fellow political progressives.

"The growing acceptance of anti-Semitic rhetoric is so commonplace it is not even recognized as anti-Semitism," wrote the activist, who went on to list a number of anti-Semitic incidents in her community that had left her rattled.

Despite her opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the woman had not attended a recent anti-war rally due to her reluctance to support the group organizing the protest.

"We've gotten calls for help like that almost weekly here for the last three years," said Bernstein, director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) office in San Francisco. "With each case we've helped put out fires by trying to get the right person to speak out about whatever the issue is."

On Jan. 28 the ADL will try to do more than just douse fires when it convenes Finding Our Voice, a daylong conference in San Francisco aimed at empowering Jewish progressives to respond to anti-Semitism on the left.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=17137

Edit: Not sure if this belongs here or in I/P.

Will they be attending also. Can they also tell about the intolerant acts against them that are also commonplace.

And just to be clear, I am not taking sides.

i am tired of people trying to include arabs into the meaning of antisemetism.

anti-semitism means anti jew. please stop trying to change the meaning of it.

Here's a looong page of how dictionaries define the term:

http://www.liberationgraphics.com/ppp/monograph_definitions_of_antisemitism.html

Most of them leave it at anti-Jewish bias, but several make points like the following: "The term is a misnomer, since it is used with reference to Jews only rather than to all Semites (including Arabs)."

Well, why not adopt a term whose literal definition corresponds to what you actually mean? Ron Rosenbaum in his book on Hitler suggested "Jew-hating." You could always say anti-Jewish. Then you're saying literally what you mean and never have to hear the (justified, I believe) complaint about the misnomer ever again.

It doesn't matter if it is a misnomer or not. It was created to mean anti-Jewish bias, it has meant such since it's inception. The only people i see trying to change it are the ones that seem to want to minimize anti-Jewish discrimination and bigotry by diluting the mean of the word with linguistic acrobatics.

& I don't get the impression you looked at the link.

Why doesn't it matter if it is a misnomer? Every child who first encounters the word has trouble understanding it.

Why do you prefer a term that clearly causes confusion?

Interestingly I've now discovered the word was coined by an anti-Semite!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr

Wilhelm Marr wanted a term that would be more "respectable" (and therefore effective) than the literally correct Judenhass (hatred of Jews). Sort of like substituting Intelligent Design for creationism. He coined the term as a positive description of the movement he supported! Amazing what a bit of history will do for ya... I suppose this is why Rosenbaum, a historian of the Nazi crimes, wants to revive the term Jew-hatred. How about anti-Judaism?

I don't think I minimize anti-Jewish discrimination, but you will no doubt think so:

In the US, anti-Semitism is a problem on the same level as discrimination against any idenfiable white ethnicity. Nothing like the racism directed at black and brown people. About on the level of what Greeks, Italians, Irish or Polish people experience. Far worse historically than it is today.

This not-very big problem is inflated into a huge one by the opportunists within each of these ethnicities (and I proudly belong to one of the ones I've specified) so that they can have that victim feeling and milk it for all it's worth.

And as for supporters of Israel in this country, the reality is that they are highly privileged: In the access given to their point of view by the corporate media, in the government policy, in the awarding of awesome quantities of aid, in the propaganda, and in the way that the PC left begins to dance nervously soon as the idea is raised that in its criticism of Israel or the Iraq war it might harbor anti-Semitism ...

Almost every one of the definitions clearly stated it was discrimination against Jews. None of the definitions vacillated from that position. Some of the descriptions did point out linguistically where the "problem" of the word was. Interestingly enough, some of those definitions weren't very good and if were taken at "face value" would all but shut-down any criticism of Israel.

"Every child who first encounters the word has trouble understanding it." Hyperbolic nonsense. If they have problem with understanding the word, then the person introducing the word is not well-versed in its meaning.

I am well aware that the creation of the word was by an anti-Semite. I believe that is called irony.

"In the US, anti-Semitism is a problem on the same level as discrimination against any identifiable white ethnicity. Nothing like the racism directed at black and brown people. About on the level of what Greeks, Italians, Irish or Polish people experience. Far worse historically than it is today." And the relevance of this 'tid bit' would be? In actuality, anti-Semitism far out reaches the level of discrimination directed at those of "Greeks, Italians, Irish or Polish" heritage. to say it is "Far worse historically than it is today." may be somewhat true, but it is no different than saying racism against Blacks was worse in the past, then it is today.

You say; "I don't think I minimize anti-Jewish discrimination, but you will no doubt think so:" then just two paragraphs later state: "This not-very big problem is inflated into a huge one by the opportunists within each of these ethnicities (and I proudly belong to one of the ones I've specified) so that they can have that victim feeling and milk it for all it's worth." Sounds like minimizing anti-Semitism to me.

"And as for supporters of Israel in this country, the reality is that they are highly privileged: In the access given to their point of view by the corporate media, in the government policy, in the awarding of awesome quantities of aid, in the propaganda, and in the way that the PC left begins to dance nervously soon as the idea is raised that in its criticism of Israel or the Iraq war it might harbor anti-Semitism ..."

This is anti-Semitism had you said "Jews." Not all supporters of Israel are, of course, Jewish; yet, the "points" you make are easily identifiable as markers of classic anti-Semitism. Some of them have been posted here (and are usually quickly deleted), but they are posted here nonetheless..."Jews control the media;" "the Jewish lobby...." and the list continues. There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israel or her policies and actions. However, when those "criticisms" are eerily close to the old anti-Semitic charges of "The Protocols", then there is a problem!

This is anti-Semitism had you said "Jews." Not all supporters of Israel are, of course, Jewish; yet, the "points" you make are easily identifiable as markers of classic anti-Semitism. Some of them have been posted here (and are usually quickly deleted), but they are posted here nonetheless..."Jews control the media;" "the Jewish lobby...." and the list continues. There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israel or her policies and actions. However, when those "criticisms" are eerily close to the old anti-Semitic charges of "The Protocols", then there is a problem!

Sorry to disappoint you. Tell you what though, you can go ahead and re-write my text until you are satisfied that you can call the results anti-Semitic, and meanwhile I'll go to bed. Goodnight.

I correctly pointed out that had you said "Jews" it would have been a clear example of anti-Semitism. What you said is debatable.

and when you call criticisms of Israel "eerily close" to anti-semitism, you are indeed wanting everyone "to dance nervously" when they criticise Israel.

The only time one needs ""to dance nervously" when they criticise Israel" is when the criticisms of Israel are "eerily close" to anti-semitism. It is very easy to criticize Israel and the criticisms not even be remotely anti-Semitic or do you not understand that?

that if you *had* said objects float freely in the atmosphere, it would have been a clear example of anti-gravitationism.

When was the last time innocent people at a community center for any other "identifiable white ethnicity"* got shot by someone who just hated that particular "white ethnicity"?

Happened to Jews here in Seattle a few months ago.

When was the last time your local German-speaking Lutheran church got emailed death threats?

Happens to my synagogue regularly enough that we need cops at major holy day services.

When such incidents are as rare for Jewish people as for any other "identifiable white ethnicity," then it will be justified to claim that Judenhass is no longer a problem in the US.

Tucker


*Since white racists don't consider Jews white, this is actually very false

I wish I could recommend an individual post.

Except your footnote: how white racists define it is beside the point. Jews in America are white.

You could have also added that the theory that Poles - as Poles - secretly run the world - out of their evil - is far less widespread in the US or the world than the version in which Jews run the world. I do think the presence of such theories should be immediately exposed in any movement, and not less than a year ago paid various prices for causing "disunity" when I did so in another context. (I made a public matter of a hate magazine called "Criminal Politics.)

Now, your first example. Because of the existence of the Jewish global conspiracy theory, I guess that in the US, crazed hating lone gunmen (or cells of crazed assholes, like Dylan & Klebold) are more likely to attack a group of Jews because they are Jewish, than to shoot a group of Amish girls because they are Amish. However, the latter did happen just in the last couple of months.

Jews are likelier targets than Croatians, though it's highly debatable whether they are likelier targets than certain cultural categories such as gang members or hippies. All of these types of attacks are comparably rare and easily exceeded by incidents in which white people decide to continue the white legacy of lynching black people. Or over-zealous cops kill unarmed persons on the street. And all of these in turn are simply dwarfed by the number of attacks by men on women because they are women.

It's not that Judenhass is not a problem in the US; my objection is the way this problem is magnified and instrumentalized by a number of right-wingers, Israel supporters and/or haters of leftists or antiwar activists to earn perpetual top-victim status for Jews (whether Jews want this or not), make Israel into the universe's highest priority and pin an ugly label (in right wing rhetoric) on anyone who's not fully with the neocon program, or (in left wing rhetoric) at least for keeping untouchable and sacred the priority of sending a few billion US tax dollars to Israel every year.

I do think the establishment left's unwillingness to address the consequences of Israeli policy and its impact on US interests is a bigger problem than the presence of morons at demonstrations who carry signs like the one posted by Behind the Aegis.

You're just muddying the waters by trying to redefine a clearly-defined term.

because of its origins in the Middle East.

I really don't like people who attempt to lable anti-Jewish actions anti-Semitic. It muddles the real meaning of Semite. There really should be a lesson on the meaning of the terms Semite and Semitic.

If I hadn't read about the meaning of the term, I would have carried on thinking anti-Semite meant anti-Jewish. So I now call any actions that are against the Jewish people, anti-Jewish. Because of my past thoughts of Anti-semitic meaning anti-Jewish, I ocassionally slip up and call anti-jewish actions anti-semitic.

The meaning of the word is very clear, despite those that wish to "muddy the waters" or redefine the word.

I'm not trying to start an argument with you. When I was 22 I read a book about certain countries of the world and got to the Middle East section of the book and I was very surprised to learn that Semite/Semitic refers to any religion that originated in the Middle East. Which would be Christian, Muslim, and Judaism.

Prior to 22, I had always believed that anti-Semitism was only referred to actions against the Jewish people. I agree with this line from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_peoples), "The late 19th century term "anti-Semitism" came to be used in reference specifically to anti-Jewish sentiment, further complicating the understood meaning and boundaries of the term."

If you look further down that entry: "The concept of a "Semitic" peoples is derived from Biblical accounts of the origins of the cultures known to the ancient Hebrews. Those closest to them in culture and language were generally deemed to be descended from their forefather Shem.

(snip)

(on Semitic Languages) Wildly successful as second languages far beyond their numbers of contemporary first-language speakers, a few Semitic languages today are the base of the sacred literature of some of the world's great religions, including Islam (Arabic), Judaism (Hebrew and Aramaic), and Orthodox Christianity (Aramaic and Ge'ez).

(on Semitic Religions) In a religious context, the term Semitic can refer to the religions associated with the speakers of these languages: thus Judaism, Christianity and Islam are often described as "Semitic religions," though the term Abrahamic religions is more commonly used today."

I have to say that defining Anti-semitism as anti-Jewish has really muddied the original meaning of the word. If you call the Palestinian Muslim people anti-semitic because they repeatedly attack Jewish businesses and people... it's basically saying they are also anti-Muslim as well, even if they are entrenched in their faith.

I really like researching the origins of words.

Show me one dictionary that defines anti-Semite as anything but a hatred toward Jews. Here's a list of twelve to get you started, including your precious Wikipedia:

http://www.onelook.com/?loc=pub&w=anti-Semite

Get it. Got it. Good :)

Semite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, especially British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs
b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/semite)

Here is an even more comprehensive list of definitions for anti-Semitic than the one you list:
http://www.liberationgraphics.com/ppp/monograph_definitions_of_antisemitism.html

All of them define it as anti-Jewish; several do point out that it's a misnomer.

Until the term is retired for one that actually makes sense, this debate (which I find very tiring after decades of it) will always arise, because the dictionary definition of Semite is inconsistent with that for anti-Semite. Recall that the term was coined by a man who proudly used it to refer to himself. It is a euphemism, something meant to sound more acceptable than hatred of Jews.

Oh, wait a minute, the subject line DOES say "anti-Semitism"... So in fact, I guess you're the one with the reading comprehension problem, not me. Please, work on that - it makes the discussion flow much more smoothly.

You're right. Every time I see the word anti-Semite, for some reason my dyslexia reads it as a compound of the prefix anti attached to the noun Semite. I think this one's a personality disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual under "virulence."

Arguments based on etymology and morphology frequently are.

"Unhappy" shouldn't mean 'sad', it should merely mean 'not being happy'--there's a small heap of such words, where the morphology gives opposites, not denial of states. The 'undead' should merely mean 'alive'. "Vicious" should have to do with 'vice'. But they don't, and no attempt to argue that their 'real meaning' is known only to a few can carry much water--it's rather like saying the vast majority of Muslims or Christians don't *really* understand their religion, just a few do, or that an Irish-American's "real" culture and language is Gaelic.

What defines a word is how a speech community uses it, morphology and etymology be damned. Now, I could imagine people trying to foist a different meaning on a speech community, in a misguided attempt to change the discourse, but usually that's recognized as either ignorance or deviousness, and given due respect. Being a naif is not a prestigious state, by and large.

Languages do change, so 'starve' no longer means 'die', and bread is no longer considered 'meat', and 'lord' is no longer the person who manages the household bread supply, but the entire anti-Semitic redefinition attempt seems as misguided as the Latinate usage of 'prevent' in the King James Bible. All it does is confuse. (Although, granted, when I read Sa'udi arguments, I realize that this plausibly is an acceptable outcome.)

One change started with a German intellectual who hated Jews, blamed them for his troubles, and thought they were winning a struggle to covertly control the world. He didn't wish these beliefs to be tainted with the strong, accurate and unpleasant term Judenhass (hatred of Jews). Therefore he promoted a euphemism to improve his movement's PR. Jews were suddenly Semitists, who advocated the rule of the Semites; whereas he stood with those who opposed them: the anti-Semites, the good guys. That the term Semites had hitherto referred to Middle Eastern ethnic groups in general was irrelevant to this fellow. He just wanted to be anti to something that would sound vaguely sinister to his audience (one modern term for this is orientalization).

This term was contestable from the moment of coinage, and has perpetually served to confuse, as you say. Sometimes a speech community does not have a consensus on what a word means, and so it remains in flux, no matter how many dictionaries wish to define the wave as a fixed particle. And it will continue to confuse, long as people - many of them among the targets of the "anti-Semitic" movement, ironically enough - cling to the oppressor's coinage.

Actually, I barely thought about this until I read Ron Rosenbaum's Explaining Hitler, in which he uses the term anti-Semitism in the now-conventional definition, but also critiques it and expresses a preference for the logical term, hatred of Jews. Anti-Judaism might also suffice. But don't go blaming me if the term you prefer will perpetually create confusion. This is a function of the original coinage, not the attempt to clarify it.

Finally, this isn't an argument based on etymology, it is an argument about etymology. It may not be as important as the length of this discussion might imply. Alas, I'm another one of these impossibly pedantic language maven types who will wrangle over the proper use of hopefully and I-me until the undead drop dead - just like you, I figure.

Your argument is kinda like arguing that it is wrong to call native North Americans, Indians, because even though Columbus saddled them with the term, he was wrong because they were really not from India. After all, semantically, Indian means someone from India...

The truth is that Anti-Semitism has acquired a meaning which stands on its own. It may have been coined in mistake, but its meaning is extremely clear and been the definition used by the perpetrators and the victims of the hate not once, but for over 150 years since the initial coinage. Trying to change its meaning is extremely insensitive.

And if that were not enough, the attempts to change this definition in this manner have been taken up by several groups who are demonstrably anti-Semitic and are wanting to confuse and cloud the usage.

Lithos
DU Moderator

Just seeing your response, after posting my latest. I'll conform to your wish and drop further discussion on this, but in leaving, submit that if ugly groups exploit this particular term to create confusion, then this is also because the term's inherent confusion offers up the opportunity. Discussion on it should be possible, and I object to the characterization of "extremely insensitive," at any rate if you are referring to my remarks.

And was trying to educate on several points the point raised, notably that the term has a well-accepted meaning and in the political realm, the loudest voices trying to redefine it only recently (past 20 years or so) started in response to those who are trying to side-step/spin-away their own hatred. While there may be some truly academic forum somewhere where people can talk about how a mischaracterization was taken by Wilhelm Marr (and other Aryan Nationalists/Eugenacists) and twisted to become a euphemism for Judenhass, any discussion outside of that forum is likely to be fraught with landmines and probably best avoided.

Morbidly fascinated by the pedantic lunacy of some of this discussion, I also checked it out to confirm my own memory. I have the M-W Unabridged Dictionary (38MB) in my smart-phone, and that's where I looked. That's essentially what it says. A secondary meaning is "opposition to Zionism, or to the State of Israel ", and THAT's what I find problematical. That would make Noam Chomsky an anti-Semite, but NOT Pat Robertson!!

This term clearly needs plenty of discussion, but including anti-Arabism/anti-Muslimism with anti-Semitism, creates far more confusion than it may dispel.

pnorman

Noam Chomsky is not opposed to the state of Israel. In his books he has said that he is a de facto Zionist.

I don't believe I know a single anti-semitic leftist, although I'm sure there are some. But how often is criticism of Israel simply labeled "anti-semitism" in an knee jerk reaction to any criticism? This is dishonest rhetoric of the worst kind. There IS a growing realization on the left that Israel's policies are part of the problem in the middle east rather than part of the solution, and until Israeli apartheid is addressed, there is little hope for peace in the region, either for arabs or for Israelis. That position has no more to do with anti-semitism than does criticism of the military dictatorship of Myanmar have do do with racial hatred of southeast asians.

That's precisely what anti-Semitism is -- equating people with policy.

More often than not *in my experience,* which I'll readily admit is limited, the actual rhetoric goes the other way entirely, i.e. trying to equate criticism of Israeli policy with criticism of Jews. That the policy makers in Israel are Jewish is at best incidental, I mean, the policy makers who oppressed black South Africans were white christians-- does criticism of their policy equate to racism against white christians?

Full disclaimer-- I'm a white atheist, so I don't mean to imply any affinity with any of the parties I've used as examples in this discussion.

I would respectfully disagree with that statement.

Israel is the Jewish state. The only such state in the world. If the policy makers in Israel were not Jewish than Israel would not be Israel.

That the policy makers in Israel are Jewish is incidental to criticism of Israeli policy when that policy deserves criticism. I know you read the rest of my comments, so please do me the courtesy of not playing word games.

You used this example:

"I mean, the policy makers who oppressed black South Africans were white christians-- does criticism of their policy equate to racism against white christians?"

I think there is a difference becauase there were many other countries besides South Africa whose leaders were white Christians.

Israel is unique in that regard as it is the only Jewish state in the world.

I am not making the argument that people who attack Israel are therefore attacking Jews.

However, I would argue that some people feel that singling out Israel for criticism at the exclusion of other countries, friendly to the US, committing serious atrocities, is noteworthy.

I am not claiming that you have done this, I just think that the fact that Israel is the Jewish state does actually figure into the equation for some people.

...and please forgive me for mistaking your meaning.

And I get really, really angry when people imply or insinuate or outright state that my opposition towards Israel's policies is a sign of some hidden or explicit antipathy towards persons of Jewish origins. It's not. The opposition is based entirely on what Israel is doing and has done to Palestinians. Period. And I'm tired of, as someone said upthread, having to dance nervously every time the subject comes up.

Stop calling me and people who share my convictions anti-Semites. It's as bad as when people said opposing Gonzo for AG meant I hate hispanic people. I oppose people's actions because of the actions themselves, not because of the person's origins.

I was just using their words from the article to demonstrate.

;)

criticism of Bush & the neocons is anti-American.

Saying that Jews control America or Israel is worse than Nazi Germany would be examples of anti-semitic rhetoric in my opinion.

So when are you allowed to make comparisons? I think Israel is heading down a similar path through the cantonization of the Palestinians. Creating walled ghettos and controlling Palestinian access to work and property seems familiar does it not?

I've had to endure knee jerk reactionary diatribes from all of my Jewish friends over topics ranging from swearing into congress on the koran to the recent Lebanon war. If I argue that the book you swear in on for a photo doesn't matter or that attacking the Lebanese for not attacking the Hezbollah is just plain wrong, am I antisemitic? That claim has been made.

I just criticize a right-wing government occupying territory taken in war and question our governments deeper and deeper involvement with them. That is enough to label you an anti-semite in some circles. Luckily, by watching Democracy Now, I see that there are plenty of Israeli jews who agree with me, and put their lives on the line to make these same points, so I haven't descended too far yet. :-)

I never had this problem AT ALL when Yitzhak Rabin was in charge. I think that says a lot about where these current cries of wolf are coming from.

You can make comparisons all you want, it doesn't make them true. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is nothing more than propaganda, ignorance, and/or hyperbole. While you 'think' you see some similarities, doesn't make it a reality. Let me help you with a small point...under the Nazi's, Jews didn't own property and they only worked for the Nazi camps, do you really see that happening in the occupied/disputed territories?



I don't know your friends, so I can't speak to what you have had to "endure." I can't see anyone claiming you to be anti-Semitic because you said that it doesn't matter what book one chooses for his/her photo op. That really doesn't even make sense, but I don't know your friends. As for your statement, "...attacking the Lebanese for not attacking the Hezbollah is just plain wrong..." if that is what you think happened, then you didn't understand what happened this last summer, which may have resulted in charges of "anti-Semitism." I don't know that I would concur with that assessment, but it would indicate you didn't understand what happened in the region.



There is nothing wrong with criticizing a right-wing government. The charges might be leveled against you depending on how you are criticizing that government and its involvement with the US, so don't be too quick to compare yourself to Israeli Jews just yet.



It says nothing. Where do you think "...these current cries of wolf are coming from"?

"...under the Nazi's, Jews didn't own property and they only worked for the Nazi camps, do you really see that happening in the occupied/disputed territories?"

I didn't refer to the Nazi death camps at all. Long before that they began by restricting Jewish movement, taking their property and walling up their neighborhoods. Are you saying Israel hasn't hasn't done that?

"you didn't understand what happened this last summer, which may have resulted in charges of "anti-Semitism." I don't know that I would concur with that assessment, but it would indicate you didn't understand what happened in the region."

I know that the lion's share of casualties were among non-Hezbollah Lebonese. I know that all those deaths are a pretty big overreaction to the kidnapping of two soldiers. I also know that instead of forcing the Lebonese to deal with Hezbollah as Israel asked, their action has made Hezbollah stronger, a pretty dumb move for any government. I also know that if you don't value diplomacy, then you won't seek a diplomatic solution.

"...these current cries of wolf are coming from?"

From a far right government that believes it can take or hold land and power by force. From people in that government that refuse to seek diplomatic avenues and having only a hammer in their toolbox see every problem as a nail.

In the states, they have an alliance of convenience with a far-right christian sect that seeks to bring about the end times through conflict in the middle east.

They are people who would call a factual statement "nothing more than propaganda, ignorance, and/or hyperbole" when they don't agree because it is impossible for them to imagine any unfavorable comparisons.

You know, extremists.

Well, if that is the case, you are correct, you are an extremist.

Your post is laughable on many levels. The first level being that you obviously don't understand what the climate of the area is. The second, you have no real working knowledge of WWII and the Nazi Regime and the current situation in the ME. I'll give you an example of the second reason.

"I know that the lion's share of casualties were among non-Hezbollah Lebonese. I know that all those deaths are a pretty big overreaction to the kidnapping of two soldiers. I also know that instead of forcing the Lebonese to deal with Hezbollah as Israel asked, their action has made Hezbollah stronger, a pretty dumb move for any government. I also know that if you don't value diplomacy, then you won't seek a diplomatic solution."

First, the amount of deaths (lion's share) of Lebanese is not what the issue is or why the war began. The rest of your pathetic response is opinion. As you are entitled to it, it doesn't make it any less pathetic and ignorant.

You seem to be of the mind set that Israel is like Nazi Germany, yet have absolutely nothing to substantiate that asinine opinion!

Jews who equate criticism of Israeli policy with hatred toward the Jewish people are the most anti-Semitic of all.

That is considered anti-semitic in some circles.

I equate that to the "America: Love it or leave it" mentality and I utterly reject it.

No government should be exempt from criticism for anything.

But that doesn't mean there aren't people who do criticize Israel because they have a problem with Jews.

Look at the David Dukes of the world. I sincerely doubt that he is concerned about the plight of the Palestinians, yet he marches in support of that cause.

Sometimes, I think those types insinuate themselves and occasionally influence people who are not so well informed with some hateful rhetoric.

What do the "David Dukes of the world" have to do with the supposed anti-Semitism in the antiwar movement? Can you come up with an example that actually refers to your supposed subject?

During the conflict between Israel and Lebanon, I noticed several posts on DU linking to editorials by Pat Buchanan and expressing agreement with his views on the conflict.

Pat Buchanan is someone whom I would label as an anti-semite and racist. Thus, I was surprised that on this issue, his viewpoints found considerable favor here.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That one is pretty fucked up. "Plays" is understated: it's a real classic of buffoonish comic-book Jewish bloodsucker propaganda. Note the labels, "Capitalist Whiteman" and "Counterfeit Jew."

So, at this protest I guess this guy was met with cheers from the other protesters and got to speak from the podium, right?

"So, at this protest I guess this guy was met with cheers from the other protesters and got to speak from the podium, right?"

Does that matter? Was that what the question was? I pointed out where anti-Semitism (I am assuming you saw that poster as anti-Semitic) has surfaced in the left's "anti-war" movement. Most people would be abhorred to carry around such bigotry, didn't seem that person had much of a problem doing it.

Perhaps the better question would be: what is the anti-war movement going to do about this type of bigotry?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The picture's from Zombietime, a "liberal who was mugged by reality", as the saying goes.

http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2006/12/5/zombietime-blogs-and-the-anti-war-movement.html

Yes, it's anti-Semitic, (obviously) but *it's* *from* *Zombietime*.

Was Zombietime the one who made the poster? You clearly seem to think it is anti-Semitic. It was at a "left" anti-war march. You don't have an issue with that?

What about Hezbollah flags at A.N.S.W.E.R. rallies?

Here are a few videos I found in a quick skim of the interweb, I will get back later on with more articles and videos though. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3PKVuwNTmk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00boVNcfEuc

As many have said here, I think that is a bigger problem than those who are against Israel because they are prejudiced against Jews in general.

I'm certainly not against Israel as a state per se. I do have a problem with the current leadership and a lot of its policies towards Palestinians, and their actions against Lebanon, etc. Just because they are a "Jewish state" doesn't mean they can get away with having policies that most in the world would have a problem with a state engaged in (no matter what their religious affiliation might be).

I also have supported HEAVILY and have felt that Russell Feingold has been my favorite candidate for 2008 presidential election too. I'm guessing that many of the progressives that are criticized for "anti-semitic" feelings towards Israel feel the same way about Mr. Feingold. How can we support a person of Jewish faith as our favorite candidate for president here, and be anti-semitic for our views on how Israel is conducting it's affairs towards Palestinians? Those don't add up.

I know that anti-semitism is something that Israelis and other folks sympathizing with Israel have to deal with constantly, and that there's a lot of very unwarranted feelings against Israelis and Jewish folk as a result. I sympathize with folks enduring that, but I think it's also not helpful when a broad brush is used to paint all critics as anti-semites either. There are many who I think would support Israel's cause more if they had more of a penchant for introspective look at when they do things wrong. I've seen it documented on independent news sources such as Democracy Now, or documentaries on Free Speech TV or Link TV that there is a sizable faction of Israelis over there that do have those feelings, but our MSM doesn't allow us to hear them, and that's part of the reason why I think there's this divide going on. By not seeing that Israeli introspection and questioning of their own government's policiies through the MSM, many Americans are seeing only the side that isn't questioning their actions, which fuels more real anti-semitism by those that don't take the time to look at independent media reports, etc.

accuses someone of being anti-semitic just because they are critical of Israeli government policies.

That said, I think one must acknowledge that some anti-semitic rhetoric does occasionally creep into the discussion, even from the progressive side.

When that happens, some Jewish progressives (as indicated by this article) become concerned.

I think it's important to flush that kind of rhetoric out and remove it from the debate.

Like here on DU banning all article references from sites like anti-war.com, which perhaps has some anti-semitic stuff on it (I personally haven't seen any), but also at times are the only sites that have very good articles from decent independent journalists such as Christopher Deliso or Scott Horton that I'd like people here to get a chance to read. I really don't think that Mr. Deliso is anti-semitic, and his voice deserves to be heard here.

Please!

Fact is, this "anti-Semitic" accusation is always thrown at anyone who questions the war; the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 (even if, like myself, they do not see Israeli involvement in that crime); and the divine right of Israel to get billions of dollars and 100 percent backup from the US. And it's usually the ADL who are leading the smear campaign with fallacious arguments and ludicrous accusations.

Since when does the ADL carry any legitimacy? Do we ask the Turkish lobby to define what's anti-Turkish?

I can't think of a single Israeli policy with regard to the residents of occupied Palestine that is justfied. If someone came and chopped down my ancient olive grove and tore down my house because a child threw a rock at a soldier from behind a tree, I would think of nothing but revenge.

What about awareness that Zionism was a classic settler colonial project in the European mold, by a European people?

What about awareness that the murder of the Jews by the Nazis has been instrumentalized into an ideological tool to justify the colonization of Palestine and to glorify American history and justify every American intervention since (US stopped Hitler, should have acted sooner, ergo the indispensable nation must invade Country X...)?

What about the idea that the US should not be subsidizing the Israeli military with billions of dollars in aid?

Are these anti-Semitism?

I support the idea that has Israelis, Jewish and Arab, and Palestinians of the territories one day living in peace in a secular, non-religious democratic state. Is that anti-Semitism?

that you're arguing against the right of the Nation of Israel to exist. You are.

That's fine, that's your prerogative; however, when one is talking about the occupation of the Palestinian territories (and the '67 war which engendered that occupation) those events have not and did not take place in a vacuum; neither, for that matter, did the events of the preceding 20 years. Whether or not, as you say, the Holocaust was over "instrumentalized" to justify the creation of the state of Israel, after '48, the state existed. With the chance to create their own state, the Palestinians repeatedly chose war and attempts to eliminate the State of Israel.

Now, if your view is (and it sounds like it is) that Israel is an imperialist, colonial entity on "stolen land" which has no right to independent existence, whether or not that's borne out by the facts, like I said that's your prerogative. However, it's highly unlikely Israelis are en masse going to voluntarily choose self-extinction, which is just as clearly the reality facing them now were there no State of Israel as it was in '48. One can argue up and down against the policies of the Government of Israel, particularly its more recent right-wing incarnation, and whether they are unwise (I think they have been)- but arguing for a reasonable resolution to the occupation issue and a two-state solution is one thing... Arguing that Israel in its entirety is an illegitimate occupying, colonial "Zionist Entity" on "stolen land" (bought and paid for, for the most part, but. whatever.) that just needs to go away is something else, entirely.

That may not make you an anti-semite, but it sure as hell doesn't make you anyone that any sane Israeli would be interested in listening to, either.

Any more than I think that the settler colonialist enterprise which stole the land of the North American peoples should go away.

I do believe my characterizations are historically accurate and correctly worded, and therefore not biased against Semites of whatever kind.

Past that, the past is past. Most of the Israelis were born in Israel and have a right to live in the land of their birth, as do the white South Africans.

Had Israeli governments followed enlightened self-interest after 1967, instead of using false pretexts to seize the land of the occupied Palestinians and settle upon it (among others) foreign religious fanatics from Russia and Brooklyn, they would have sought to let the Palestinians share in the country's economic development and ultimately become citizens. This was possible even after 1987, though it's hard to imagine after 2000. Today this could have been a secular and prospering nation, instead of a religiously-based* and possibly unsustainable enclave under population siege, in turn besieging these smaller prison camps it pretends are a Palestinian proto-state. (*And yes I know Israel within its self-proclaimed borders is ostensibly secular with a 20% Arab population, but the "right of return" for Jews only makes that a farce.)

I don't know what the solution is. Too many people are determined not to have a solution, starting with the ones who are still in the position of power: the Israeli right-wing, which currently seems to be the majority, who are figuring the solution is going to involve a lot of crushing of other countries and expulsion of populations...

Like you, I don't know what the answer is.

Most of my understanding of this conflict is filtered through the fact that I have dozens of Palestinian friends. Despite what my Israeli friends think, none of them want Israel to disappear. They just want Israel to stop stealing their land. Many of them think Israel is an illegitimate state, but then again so is the US. They know perfectly well there's nowhere else for a few million Israelis to go. They just want them to stop taking their land and tearing down their houses. Now, my friends are all West Bank residents: Gazans I think feel a lot differently because they've been shoved into the world's largest and densest prison camp their whole lives.

I am neither anti-Jewish nor pro-Jewish as such. I think ethnicities and religions are humbugs used to dupe gullible people. It is not a nightmare to me for there no longer to be a Jewish state, nor is it a goal for me to remove a Jewish state. I honestly don't care. I just want the killing to stop. But that means the land confiscation has to stop, unless the solution will be for the Palestinians to share the fate of the Sioux.

A MIHOPer defending anti-semitism and advocating the destruction of Israel. Imagine that.

Long as you're just making any shit up that you feel like, why not?

(Oh and thanks for illustrating the point that certain true statements about Israeli history & policy automatically trigger the "anti-Semitic" rap from at least some people.)

But the fact that it isn't doesn't mean anti-semitism is nonexistent on the left.

I've seen anti-semitism on the left (and on the right, too), and it wasn't "criticism of some Israeli policies". I do that all the time, and somehow no one ever calls me anti-semitic.

Anti-Israel, so long as you're talking about the secular policies of the secular state of Israel, isn't anti-Semitic. When you start attacking the people of Israel is when, for me, you've crossed the line

...*because they are Jewish* is when you cross the line, IMO. The IDF who implement Israeli policy, for example, are among the people of Israel, yet expressing anger at their oppression of Palestinians is not anti-semitic-- it's criticism of their actions in support of an unjust state policy. One can hardly speak about Israel without speaking of Israelis. The important thing is to separate disdain for their policies from actual anti-semitism.

People are complex, actions are often not. If you criticize a person just for being or for their job, I think that crosses the line. When you criticize their actions that's another matter entirely. Nothing wrong with criticizing IDF soldiers for attacking civilian targets, but to criticize and Israeli for being in the IDF is another matter. It would be like attacking a US soldier for being a soldier, whether or not he was involved in the Haditha Massacre.

it's significant that Jewish Voice for Peace and Tikkun weren't invited. The blurred lines between anti-Semitism and opposition to Israeli policy isn't blurred enough for some people.

BTW, the death threats mentioned were bad enough, but they weren't "credited" to Progressives, liberals, or anyone else, and might well have come from the usual skinhead assholes.

And, expect this to diappear into I/P soon enough.

"Nazi-like arm salutes."

If someone is going to say this, we are going to have to see some extensive visual/audio evidence, as well as possible interviews with people.

Better yet, before we go any further, do you see those examples you listed as being anti-Semitic or not?

This is the 21st century, people have video cameras and digital cameras. Where are the videos? Where are digital pictures?

There was only one picture there.

If this is going on in droves it needs to be exposed, the best way to make someone change is to punish them with the profound shame of being labeled an anti-Semite, and to have that charge backed up with hard evidence.

Saying someone is anti-Semitic is not something to be taken lightly, because that sort of attitude puts a person in the same class as Hitler, literally.

It seems anyone who says anything critical of Israel or those who blindly support Israel are labeled as anti-Semites.

Instead of having a real debate, this charge is hurled around. It's literally in this case like being called an al-Qaeda sympathizer by a Republican. It has the same chilling effect on debate.

Unfortunately, people cannot debate one another when it simply devolves into insults. Sadly, the problems the ME, and in specific Israel, face are so important they ought to be debate frequently.

It's not happening, and so no one makes real progress on dealing with the regional tensions or progress on improving American policy towards Israel.

...what is anti-Semitic? Is the poster I placed up-thread anti-Semitic in your view? If so, then I can gladly help you. I may come back an edit this post to address some other things in your post...but, I have to shower. I will return in a little while.

and yes that's anti-Semitic.

Rather than editing the other post, I will reply here in hopes that if you are still awake, you will respond.



As I said, I can provide you with proof. I am glad we are in agreement about the anti-Semitic nature of the poster I showed. There is only a slight issue: many on the left refuse to admit there is anti-Semitism on the left, therefore, finding 'left' sources is difficult. Why is that? One would think that any form of bigotry would be reviled by liberals, so why not expose it when it is in OUR backyard?! Any way, there is a site that has this documented quite well, but it is a "right-wing" source. If you wish, I will upload those pics to photobucket and post the worst ones here or I can PM you with the link and you can explore.





I don't recall anyone saying it was in "droves," but even small amounts should be unacceptable. Do you not agree? Also, I disagree with your assessment that the best way to punish people is with the shame of the label "anti-Semite." Look in this very thread, there are people here who throw it around with abandon. They don't care if they are labeled (even mislabeled) as anti-Semites; it doesn't matter to them. I also disagree that calling someone an anti-Semite puts them in the same class as Hitler. I have known plenty of anti-Semites that don't even come close to Hitler! Not all racists are Klan members or would even go those extremes, but all Klan members are racists. To me, that would be more of how I would use the "Hitler" charge.



I have never seen those who "blindly support Israel" labeled as anti-Semites, so, I am going to guess you forgot a "don't" in that statement. :) Anyway, you are correct that sometimes "anti-Semite" is tossed out as a "bomb" of sorts to stop or stifle discussion. I don't deny that happening. Conversely though, the charge of "being called an anti-Semite" is also freely thrown about and has the same effect.



I also think you are wrong with your first statement. I have had many a conversation and debate with people here and never once did it cross my mind that s/he was an anti-Semite, nor did I call them such. There are a few here that aren't even really anti-Israeli bigots (there are some here that unfairly attack Israel at every turn, and that, IMO, is bigotry against Israel...not much different than "South bashing.") I agree that the problems of the Middle East, including Israel, should be debated and discussed. However, in doing so, I think we should also recognize that some who "debate" are anti-Semites!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The picture properties -

One's from NewsBusters.org;

About NewsBusters.org
Posted by Brent Baker on August 1, 2005 - 06:35.

Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center, the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

With NewsBusters, the MRC has joined forces with the creators of the influential web site RatherBiased.com, Matthew Sheffield and Greg Sheffield, to launch the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting.

Taking advantage of the MRC's thorough and ongoing tracking of liberal media bias, including a wealth of documentation and an archive of newscast video dating back 18 years, we aim to have NewsBusters play a leading role in blog media criticism by becoming the clearinghouse for all evidence of liberal media bias by joining to this formidable information store the contributions of already-established netizens as well as those who want to join in the web revolution.
Contacting Us

If you are a blogger and would like to contribute commentary, contact Greg Sheffield. News media inquiries about NewsBusters.org should be directed to the MRC's Director of Communications, Michael Chapman. For technical issues, send an email to newsbusters@mediaresearch.org
Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's mission is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. The MRC was founded on October 1, 1987 by a group of young, determined conservatives headed by L. Brent Bozell III who set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that this bias exists, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene.

NewsBusters.org is a project of the MRC's News Analysis Division, led since 1987 by Brent Baker, the MRC's Steven P.J. Wood Senior Fellow and Vice President for Research and Publications. The division produces daily, weekly and special reports that document and counter liberal bias from television network news shows and major print publications. Tim Graham serves as Director of Media Analysis and Rich Noyes is the Director of Research.

The MRC's other Web projects

TimesWatch, a site dedicated to "documenting and exposing the liberal political agenda of the New York Times."

Free Market Project, "auditing the media's coverage of the free market system."

CNSNews.com, the CyberCast News Service, where you get "The Right news. Right now."

A couple are from Zombietime, *again*, & a couple are from Freemanz.com, aka one Jeffrey Manzelli;

http://www.jeffreymanzelli.com/

So, LD for how long have you been a fan of these sites? :)

Did you READ what I SAID? Are you EVER going to address the actual PHOTOS?

Are YOU saying they are all staged? Do you have any proof of that?

Attack, attack, attack but for G-d's sake don't address the fucking issue. You might have to go to Oz and see the wizard.

Attack, attack, attack but for G-d's sake don't address the fucking issue. You might have to go to Oz and see the wizard.

Says Dorothy.

You clearly see those pics as anti-Semitic, but didn't bother to address that issue but rather, where they came from (were posted). Seems you might want to ask yourself...."why is that filth allowed at anti-war marches (left causes)?"

I checked the properties on some of the photos LD posted (before they were deleted for breaking I/P rules) and went to the websites where they originated.

The photos I checked weren't from anti-war marches.

Instead, they were from anti-Israel protests, and as we all know, many people participate in those protests, not all of them necessarily from the 'left.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3PKVuwNTmk

(I don't necessarilly agree with whoever made the videos conclusions, nor can I verify the translations of some parts, however most of it is self explanitory)

more of at ANSWER rallies in San Francisco. Several prominent groups seem to make a point of it.

To be fair I've also seen the mock Israeli flags where the star of david is replaced by a swastika. These are invariably carried by groups of people who appear to be arabs/palestinians. I believe that it expresses a cogent criticism of the policies of the Israeli state. The walls and kill zones in the West Bank don't help Israel look good. Nor does the starvation of Gaza.

My belief is that this thread is yet another propaganda attempt by Israeli partisians. Most of the rest of us are tired of it. Israel will have to come to a peace with it's neighbors or it will cease to exist. The demographics of Israeli birth rates make that clear.

Criticism of Israel is NOT criticism of Jews. Even criticism that equates certain specific actions of the Israeli state with specific actions of the Nazi state. Turning Gaza into a large concentration camp appears to be a policy and action of the Israeli state that is worthy of such comparison.

Now can we toss this back into I/P where it belongs? Stomping on a peace rally because there will be a tiny fraction that might criticize Israel just doesn't wash with me.

"Arab and Jew walking hand in hand is what I've seen more of at ANSWER rallies in San Francisco. Several prominent groups seem to make a point of it."

Why should that be surprising? There are a number of Jews who willing accept anti-Semitism as a fact of life. Also, it is not to say, that there are also a number of Arabs and Jews, who are not anti-Semitic, and really do desire peace in that region and not at the expense of the Israeli people.

"To be fair I've also seen the mock Israeli flags where the star of david is replaced by a swastika. These are invariably carried by groups of people who appear to be arabs/palestinians. I believe that it expresses a cogent criticism of the policies of the Israeli state. The walls and kill zones in the West Bank don't help Israel look good. Nor does the starvation of Gaza."

Glad to hear you admit you have seen those things. Do you find them anti-Semitic or do you simply pass them off as "legitimate" criticism?

"My belief is that this thread is yet another propaganda attempt by Israeli partisians. Most of the rest of us are tired of it. Israel will have to come to a peace with it's neighbors or it will cease to exist. The demographics of Israeli birth rates make that clear. "

Well, my belief is that this thread is an example of how anti-Semitism is tolerated and/or excused as legitimate anti-Israeli expressions. Why must the burden of peace be at Israel's doorstep and NOT shared with the others who surround her? Also, you have set up the excuse if Israel is destroyed it is her own doing. Clever.

"Criticism of Israel is NOT criticism of Jews. Even criticism that equates certain specific actions of the Israeli state with specific actions of the Nazi state. Turning Gaza into a large concentration camp appears to be a policy and action of the Israeli state that is worthy of such comparison. "

Well, we seem to agree on something, though not entirely. Criticism of Israel is not ALWAYS criticism of Jews. Comparing Israel to the Nazi regime may not be anti-Semitic, but it is absurd hyperbole, much like your next statement comparing Gaza to a concentration camp.

"Now can we toss this back into I/P where it belongs? Stomping on a peace rally because there will be a tiny fraction that might criticize Israel just doesn't wash with me. "

Fascinating! If this were an anti-Israeli post, people would be howling about NOT tossing it to the "dungeon." However, it is not even really about Israel, per se, but about how anti-Semitism has crept into the "anti-war" movement, and now we see those willing to toss it in the "dungeon." As for your last statement, that just shows you don't understand what the article is about. It is not a matter of a "tiny fraction that might criticize Israel" but rather, about allowing BIGOTRY into the march!

Glad to hear you admit you have seen those things (ed: Israeli flags with the Magen David replaced by a swastika). Do you find them anti-Semitic or do you simply pass them off as "legitimate" criticism?

I'm just curious, how do you find that anti-Semitic? I certainly don't. Or were you talking about something else? How is comparing the actions of Israel in the occupied territories to previous examples of ethnic cleansing anti-Semitic? Are you implying that by opposing these actions we are somehow blaming all people of Jewish origin for these policies? I certainly am not.

I guess this is the dividing point here.

Protesting Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories is not what people are complaining about.
If anyone calls that anti-semitism, I will disagree 100 percent.

However, if people do not agree that replacing the symbol of Judaism and Israel (the Star of David) with the symbol of Nazi Germany could be construed as anti-semitic than I think there is just not going to be agreement on this issue.

Does the Jewish-ness have nothing whatsoever to do with the choice of that particular analogy (Israel-Nazi Germany)? Is it just a coincidence that Nazi Germany killed six million Jews and Israel is the Jewish state? Does it just happen to be the most apt comparison to use?

I would argue that it does not and that the comparison is deliberately made for reasons not connected to simply strongly protesting Israeli government policy in the Occupied Territories.

Anti-Semitism would be saying that all Jewish people are bad. Replacing the star of david on a flag with a swastika is not saying that, it's comparing the actions of the Israeli government to the actions of the Reich.

However, if people do not agree that replacing the symbol of Judaism and Israel (the Star of David) with the symbol of Nazi Germany could be construed as anti-semitic than I think there is just not going to be agreement on this issue.

Then come up with an argument to justify your claim. I have justified mine: anti-Semitism is the attribution of bad characteristics to all persons of Jewish origin. I don't see in any way how putting a swastika on the Israeli flag does that, any more than putting a swastika on a French flag would be saying something bad about all French people. It's clearly (to me) a statement that the Israeli government is practicing the very same policies that they themselves should by all rights most abhor. Now, I'll agree with you that it's over the top and probably counter-productive, but it's simply not anti-Semitic and you haven't presented any argument that it is other than "the Nazis killed a lot of Jews so any comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany is a priori anti-Semitic".

Does the Jewish-ness have nothing whatsoever to do with the choice of that particular analogy (Israel-Nazi Germany)? Is it just a coincidence that Nazi Germany killed six million Jews and Israel is the Jewish state? Does it just happen to be the most apt comparison to use?

*shrug* A lot of us have tried to compare it to Apartheid and get our heads bitten off just as quickly; I don't know of any particular anti-Semitism involved in South Africa. And in general I could care less about Jewish-ness or Arab-ness or Muslim-ness because I think they're all humbugs invented to dupe the gullible, but that's a topic for another thread: my real point is that if someone replacing the star of david with a swastika is hurtful it is not because it is some anti-Semitic invective aimed against all Jews but rather because at a fundamental level there is some validity in comparing the actions of Israel with the early pogroms of Nazi Germany -- confinement into ghettos, military and paramilitary actions killing many civilians, economic and political disenfranchisement, and social isolation.

In fact, let me turn your question around, if I may: does it not behoove a country founded in response to ethnic cleansing and genocide to be reminded when it is walking down the same path as the evildoers it was founded in response to? Is it wrong to remind Israelis when Palestinians are being sent into barbed-wire enclosed camps and told "women to the right, men to the left"? If you don't want to call Gaza and the Palestinian areas of the west bank "ghettos", what do you want to call them?

Perhaps using a French flag in place of the Israeli flag would make the point. After all, France was a colonial power. France treated the native populations cruelly and inhumanely. France was one of the most brutal occupying regimes of the early 20th century. Or perhaps a Belgian flag to highlight the draw a relationship between the cruelty of the Belgian colonial regime over the Congo. The United States was founded by people who displaced a native population, forced them to live on reservations, stole other people's land. Perhaps that flag would make the point more strongly.

In each of theses cases you have a foreign European power unjustly ruling over a native population.

In the case of Nazi Germany, you have the Germans murdering other Germans (and later other Europeans).

There have been so many brutal regimes that so closely mirror the awful behavior you are describing
yet somehow it seems the Nazi Germany comparison is selected much more frequently than any of the other examples cited.

If one perceives Israeli policies to be as you describe them to be there are a multitude of similar situations throughout history that would be analogous to that assessment.

The choice of Nazi Germany is a deliberately inaccurate choice. It is one chosen to highlight the Jewishness of Israel and then to link the Jewish state to the despicable Nazi Regime.

In the past, when I have heard of the swastika appearing at rallies against Israeli policies, I had generally assumed that it was the insinuation of various hate groups into the peace movement.

Learning now that some actual progressives are comfortable defending the use of a swastika as a legitimate statement of protest against Israeli policies is troubling to me.

When I see protesters carrying Palestinian flags and signs reading "End the Occupation" it is easy to see how that is a political statement. It is in no way antisemitic. It does not show support for terrorists but for a nation of Palestine. It does not denigrate Jews but lambastes the Israeli government for actions the protester deems wrong.

A swastika, on the other hand, is used for a very specific - and hurtful - purpose. To link the Jewish state to the regime that killed half of its population is not a political statement. It is vile hatred.

Why shouldn't Palestinians point out that Israel is betraying the very principle on which it was founded? Why does the Shoah exempt the government of Israel from any comparison with its perpetrators?

Now, I can understand if you say the Shoah should not be used for political purposes -- however, the Israeli government has already invalidated that policy, using the Shoah as a club against people who criticize it. Given that, I don't see what's wrong with Palestinians responding in kind and pointing out Israel's similarities to the regime that nation should most despise.

I realize that for some the temptation to throw the worst possible accusations at the state and people they hate so much is overwhelming.

However, the comparison is akin to claiming that the US and Americans are racist war-mongerers for attacking Japan in WWII. Of course, we killed Japanese military and Japanese civilians who also happened to be Asian, not Caucasian. We did horribly violent things to their nation including the use of two nuclear weapons that finally ended the conflict with our victory.

We are not considered racist war-mongers because it is commonly understood that nations have the right of self-defense. We were attacked by Japan - not the other way around.

Israel's defensive policies may be misguided or counterproductive. I don't know and it's not my call. It's not Americans who have been the targets of Palestinian suicide bombers and rockets and snipers for the last 70 years. But I also know that the number of Palestinians who have died or been imprisoned at the hand of Israel in the process of defending itself is a small fraction of the violence inflicted by Arabs on each other in the Muslim world during the same period.

I also know that none of that death and destruction was caused by a campaign of hatred by Israel against Palestinians. Hamas and various Palestinian leaders going back decades have declared war against Israel and have executed that war whenever they have had the opportunity. Whatever damage was done to Palestinians by Israel was done in defense - just as our war against the Axis was. Peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt make it obviously clear to anyone who cares to notice that Israel has no desire to be at war with any nation or people who recognize its right to live in peace and security.

Self defense is not racism, it's not apartheid, it's not genocide and it's not ethnic cleansing. All those crimes could be twisted to apply in specific defensive circumstances by the US and the Allies to defeat the Axis.

Israel is acting in self defense. That remains true no matter how much those who side with the militant Palestinians try to brand Israel with those false flags.

It is actually the Palestinians who, under their various leaders, have been guilty of all those crimes against humanity over the last seventy years. That's why the pleas of the Palestinians and their apologists generally fall on deaf ears in the world at large.

However, the comparison is akin to claiming that the US and Americans are racist war-mongerers for attacking Japan in WWII. Of course, we killed Japanese military and Japanese civilians who also happened to be Asian, not Caucasian. We did horribly violent things to their nation including the use of two nuclear weapons that finally ended the conflict with our victory.

And, we interned our own citizens in concentration camps based solely on race. And we used napalm on Tokyo after having decided not to use it in Europe once we saw what it did to Dresden (it's ok to do that to non-white cities, I guess). And we produced vile racist propaganda (check out some of these comic book covers, but you've been warned)
http://www.superdickery.com/propaganda/1.html
http://www.superdickery.com/propaganda/5.html
http://www.superdickery.com/propaganda/14.html

Israel is acting in self defense. That remains true no matter how much those who side with the militant Palestinians try to brand Israel with those false flags.

The Palestinians are acting in self defense. That remains true no matter how much those who side with the militant Israelis try to brand Palestine with false flags.

See how far playing "who started it" gets us? The fact remains that Palestinians whether they resist or not are living under severe economic and military oppression and are killed by the scores whenever the IDF feels like it. They can't work, can't see their families, can't travel, and are running out of water and arable land. And yet according to a lot of people, the "racists" are the ones who point these conditions out, not the ones creating these conditions. Go figure...

The Shoah does not exempt the government of Israel from any comparison with its perpetrators.

It is one thing to assert that there are similarities between what is going on in the Occupied Territories and some of the early discriminatory practices of the Nazi Regime. It is another thing to march with a swastika in place of the Star of David.

The swastika is not a symbol of the early discriminatory practices of the Nazi Regime it is a symbol of the totality of the Nazi Regime, a regime that systematically exterminated six million Jews.

If you can come up with a better iconic symbol for the premise "I am comparing what is going on in the Occupied Territories to what went on in Eastern Europe after the Anschluss" other than combining the flag of the one with the flag of the other, I'm all ears. Like I said I think the Magen David / Swastika thing is way over the top and counterproductive so I think there should be a better way to do that; I personally prefer the use of Apartheid language and imagery because that's a bit closer to what's going on: a European colonial power setting up shop in a non-European nation.

Actually an even better comparison would be the Native Americans in the 19th Century; maybe if I ever make a flag I'll do something based on that.

The swastika is not a symbol of the early discriminatory practices of the Nazi Regime it is a symbol of the totality of the Nazi Regime, a regime that systematically exterminated six million Jews.

I see our disconnect, then. To the extent that I think that flag has any purpose it is as a warning to Israel that they are treading down the exact same road the Nazi's did, and using the same kind of groupthink, xenophobia, and racial hatred that metastasized in Nazi Germany into the Shoah.

How is Gaza like a prison/concentration camp.

In Gaza the entire population is confined regardless of age, sex or occupation.

In Gaza movement to and from other nations/states/surrounding areas is restricted by race.

In Gaza there are large restrictions on the free movement of materials neccesary for the survival of the populace confined specifically food, medicines, tools, and materials for the maintenance of neccesary services such as water systems and building materials.

Trade to and from Gaza has been restricted or eliminated.

The people of Gaza's access to clean water is restricted by the occupying force including destruction of functioning wells.

The means of production of food have been systematically destroyed by occupying forces. (The Israeli government)

Civilians including women and children are regularly murdered by occupying forces. (The Israeli government)

In short the Israeli government has placed 1.3 million people in a concentration camp and kills some of them whenever it gets annoyed. It's a concentration camp and only 2 governments in the world fail to recognize that. (well since South Africa gave up on apartheid)

So who's really the racist around here?


Here are some links:
UN human rights envoy says Gaza a prison for Palestinians
Terror and starvation in Gaza
Gaza is a jail. Nobody is allowed to leave. We are all starving now"

Note: none of the above cited articles criticizes the jewish people rather they all attribute actions of the Israeli government. Criticism of Israel's actions are desperately needed right now.

Gaza is no more a concentration camp than a dimpled ass is the moon.

"In Gaza the entire population is confined regardless of age, sex or occupation."

Confined by a number of groups, one of which is Israeli...the other groups...not so Israeli.

"In Gaza movement to and from other nations/states/surrounding areas is restricted by race."

Race? What race? Palestinian? That is not a "race." By the way...you might want to notice that Egypt has also denied entry.

"In Gaza there are large restrictions on the free movement of materials necessary for the survival of the populace confined specifically food, medicines, tools, and materials for the maintenance of necessary services such as water systems and building materials."

The Israelis aren't the only ones to blame for this issue, despite your wishes. Perhaps you should address the PA!

"Trade to and from Gaza has been restricted or eliminated."

Eliminated? LOL! :rofl: "Eliminated" would mean that NO trade was happening. Now, certain markets may have been "eliminated," but then again, that pretty much rests on the PA, and not Israel. (It's that whole...throwing missiles in Israel's backyard bullshit.)

"The people of Gaza's access to clean water is restricted by the occupying force including destruction of functioning wells."

There is no 'occupying force.' Unless you are calling the PA an occupying force.

"The means of production of food have been systematically destroyed by occupying forces. (The Israeli government)"

Silly propaganda...yet again.

"Civilians including women and children are regularly murdered by occupying forces. (The Israeli government)"

Silly propaganda...yet again.


Still, not a damn thing you provided as "proof" makes Gaza anywhere near being a concentration camp. i have yet to see one fucking video of an IDF member telling a Palestinian mother and her child to "breathe deeply" in "the shower!"

You spew nothing but anti-Israeli bigotry.

http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp

link to statement:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20061116_Brief_on_Gaza.asp

"Nine Israeli human rights organizations issued an unprecedented joint call to the international community to ensure human rights in the Gaza Strip. The statement comes in light of the dire humanitarian situation there:

Some 80% of the population is extremely poor, living on less than $2 a day. A majority of the population is dependant on food aid from international donors.

In the past four months, the Israeli military has killed over 300 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Over half of those killed were unarmed civilians who did not participate in the fighting. Among the dead, 61 were children.

About 70% of Gaza 's potential workforce is out of work or without pay.

On 28 June, Israel bombed Gaza ' s only independent power station, which produced 43% of the electricity needed by the residents in Gaza . Since then, most of the population has electricity between 6 and 8 hours each day, with disastrous consequences on water supply, sewage treatment, food storage, hospital functioning and public health.

The Gaza Strip is almost entirely sealed off from the outside world, with virtually no way for Palestinians to get in or out. Exports have been reduced to a trickle; imports are limited to essential humanitarian supplies.
Israel cannot shirk its responsibility for this growing crisis. Even after its Disengagement in 2005, Israel continues to hold decisive control over central elements of Palestinian life in the Gaza Strip:

Israel continues to maintain complete control over the air space and territorial waters.

Israel continues to control the joint Gaza Strip-West Bank population registry , preventing relocation between the West Bank and Gaza , and family unification.

Israel controls all movement in and out of Gaza , with exclusive control over all crossing points between Gaza and Israel , and the ability to shut down the Rafah crossing to Egypt .

Israeli ground troops conduct frequent military operations inside Gaza .
Israel continues to exercise almost complete control over imports and exports from the Gaza Strip.

Israel controls most elements of the taxation system of the Gaza Strip, and since February has withheld tax monies legally owed to the PA, and amounting to half of the to tal PA budget.
The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip creates a strong case for the claim that Israel 's occupation of the Gaza Strip continues, along with an obligation to ensure the welfare of the civilian population. Regardless of the legal definition of the Gaza Strip, Israel bears legal obligations regarding those spheres that it continues to control. Israel has the right to defend itself. However, all military measures taken by Israel must respect the provisions of international humanitarian law.

The following Israeli human rights organizations call on the international community to ensure that Israel respects the basic human rights of residents of the Gaza Strip, and that all parties respect international humanitarian law:

B'Tselem: the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories * Association for Civil Rights in the Israel *Amnesty International–Israel Section * Bimkom: Planners for Planning Rights * HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual * Gisha: Center for the Legal Protection of Freedom of Movement * Physicians for Human Rights-Israel * Public Committee Against Torture in Israel * Rabbis for Human Rights " "

link: http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20061116_Brief_on_Gaza.asp

________________

________________

Lt. Col Pistolese (of European Union) urges Israel to ease restrictions on Egypt-Gaza crossing

link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815070.html

Sun., January 21, 2007

snip:"Pistolese urges Israel to ease restrictions on Egypt-Gaza crossing
The head of the European mission monitoring operations at the Egypt-Gaza border, Lt. Gen. Pietro Pistolese, urged Israel on Thursday to stop restricting operations there, saying disruptions only promote "extremism and terror."

Pistolese said Thursday that no weapons have been smuggled through the crossing since it was opened, and that all weapons that were discovered were destroyed.

Since the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June, Pistolese said, the crossing has been open only 39 days. During that time 80,000 people have passed through it, he said, though 550,000 could have used it if it had been open the entire period.

Israel, citing security alerts, has kept the Rafah terminal - Gaza's main gateway to the outside world - closed for about 80 percent of the time since Shalit's capture.

The European monitors at Rafah were deployed as part of a U.S.-brokered agreement of November 2005 that was to ease movement in and out of Gaza. The agreement was reached two months after Israel withdrew from the coastal strip."

"Pistolese said it is counterproductive to deprive Gaza's 1.4 million people of access to the rest of the world."

link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815070.html

<snip>

"Israel continues to control Gaza, 16 months after it pulled out its settlements and military installations, with an "invisible hand" that has provoked a severe humanitarian and economic crisis, according to an Israeli human rights body.

Ending its 38-year military occupation of the Gaza Strip did not end Israeli control but simply changed the rules of engagement, charges Gisha, the Legal Centre for Freedom of Movement, in a report due to be published next week.

The organisation says that Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, territorial waters, population registry, tax system and supply of goods means that it cannot absolve itself of responsibility for its citizens under international law.

"It’s a new position made very clear in Hebrew before the courts but not something that Israel has made clear internationally," said Sari Bashi, Gisha’s executive director.

"Sometimes Israeli soldiers still operate in the streets of Gaza but Israeli control of every aspect of the lives of Gaza citizens is constant, they know that their ability to do ordinary things like turn on a light or buy milk depends on decisions made by the Israeli military."

The report details how Israel has removed some of its elements of control while significantly tightening others.

"Far from improving the economy and welfare of Gaza residents, Israeli actions since September 2005 - including severe restrictions on the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza and an economic stronghold on the funding of civil services - have contributed to an economic and humanitarian crisis in Gaza not seen in the 38 years of Israeli control that preceded the withdrawal of permanent ground troops."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2548381,00.html

it's a fascist, regardless of its ethnicity/religion/race

nor in the experience of, for example, Jimmy Carter

nor in the experience of any numbers of critics of Zionism



aaaarrrrghhh. there I go, being "anti-Semitic."

So I haven't discussed it here since then. But it doesn't change the fact that there is a lot of loose rhetoric promulgated by some of the leading anti-war groups in the US, rhetoric that equates all Jews in America and Israel with wrong-headed Israeli politicians and policies.

On the contrary, there are several Jewish organizations in both America and Israel whose members are actively working toward peace and reconciliation with the Palestinians.

And there are many Jews in America who oppose the Iraq invasion and occupation, but who are rightfully turned off by what amounts to unthinking anti-Semitism.

When I got flamed I was told to go to I/P. I didn't. And I'm glad you brought this into GD.

Hekate

I/P, but some of us readily agree to that as it keeps that 'progressive' anti-Semitism off GD, and other of the large forums, where it so often runs amok if not stopped.

"Despite her opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the woman had not attended a recent anti-war rally due to her reluctance to support the group organizing the protest."

scary times. i am, in fact, just last night and this morning, colliding with the fact that once again the march in dc is being torn by including this issue in it. i go to stop the occupation of iraq, but then find... alas... you know. your OP said it well.
now, i am hours from leaving on a bus for dc... and seething about this! WHILE reading Abraham Foxman's excellent and anguishing book, *Never Again?*!!!

so, i am going and will confront those divisive people: "so, i'm curious. do you put this kind of dedication into fighting to free Leonard Peltier? or into other Native American struggles for Justice?"

i'm off to get ready now. be well all!


peace

as being anti-semitism then you might think it's on the rise. Myself I think it's a disingenuous defensive reaction by right wing Jews and pro-Israeli American's.

Some Jews on the left view groups like the ADL and AIPAC with skepticism, believing they deliberately blur the line between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. Others are staying away from the conference out of fear that association with it could cost them credibility in the progressive community. "We've all had to break out of our comfort zones to put this together, including myself," Bernstein said.

But for some, the ADL hasn't broken out enough.

Two prominent Bay Area Jewish organizations active in the progressive movement -- Tikkun and Jewish Voice for Peace -- were not invited to co-sponsor the conference. Two others were invited to participate but declined, citing concerns about the agenda.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, the founder of Tikkun and perhaps the most well-known Jewish progressive in the country, will be in Washington on the day of the conference protesting the Iraq war.

A spokesperson for Jewish Voice for Peace, a liberal advocacy group working on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said: "From our perspective, you cannot get to the roots of anti-Semitism in the progressive movement without honestly addressing the severe human-rights violations that Israel engages in every day. Judging by the lineup, that kind of honest examination is not likely to happen at this conference."

I hope the conference is a success, though, and that it doesn't blur the lines between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel....

edited to add that I suspect with the inclusion of AIPAC there's little chance that there won't be an attempt to blur the lines...

"From our perspective, you cannot get to the roots of anti-Semitism in the progressive movement without honestly addressing the severe human-rights violations that Israel engages in every day"
_____

so the roots of anti semitism is israeli policies?

or...

progressivs are so dumb they cant differentiate between israel and anti semitism?

or

how about this:
we cant get to the bottom of anti muslim bias without honestly addressing the muslim suicide bomber and their state sponsers (hamas, fatah, iran)?

To get to the roots of anti-Semitism, anyone with a real desire to do so has to try to separate genuine antisemitism from legitimate criticism of Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories. I'm not sure how you think that conference could go ahead if it doesn't do that...

at least for a "progressive" (since the definition has something to do with individual human rights, etc)

for the rest i would say "yes' they need a basic lesson to differentiate between a state policy vs a people...

There are a few posters here who tend to blur the lines between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel. Any conference that is about the rise of antisemitism on the Left is absolutely useless unless that is addressed and antisemitism is defined clearly....

but that is because those "progressives" are ignorent people who like to hate..

I always though the "progressive' was one who believed in liberal values, human rights etc.....if someone who believes in that, cant tell the difference between anti semistim and israeli policies, they are not progressive by any stretch of the imagination......

in fact they are probably no more than simple anti semites hiding behind the "cloak" of human rights, and progressiveness

in fact they are probably no more than simple anti semites hiding behind the "cloak" of human rights, and progressiveness

Harsh call there, pelsar, and obviously not true. The behaviour of some 'supporters' of Israel in blurring the lines between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel is clearly not due to antisemitism, but by not being able to make a distinction between genuine antisemitism and Israel as a state which has all the responsibilities and obligations of any other state...

jew (jew groups, jew culture)...vs state of israel govt policies.

the only real "people" who confuse that line legitimately are the palestinians (surprise?)...the ones in gaza and the westbank. When discussing the problem they wiill interchange the two. Infact they see israel/jew as the same.

but then they arent proclaiming to be "progresssives".


there will be one argument where i can see where it can be confused. And that would be one who believes all nationstates should be disolved and that would include israel...as well as syria, jordan, australia, etc


teaching a "progressive" to differentiate is like teaching a civil rights worker in the 60's that blacks deserve equal rights.

You honestly believe even after being in this forum for a long time that there's not 'progressive' pro-Israelis who blur the lines between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel?

assertion that progressives need some help...

"you cannot get to the roots of anti-Semitism in the progressive movement without honestly addressing the severe human-rights violations that Israel engages in every day"
______


in answer to your question....no. I've noticed far far more anti semitic remarks either directly (jews control america) or, hidden within anti israeli "protests (i.e.ANSWER not letting israelis speak or the pro boycotter's who got Miriam Shlesinger fired for being an israeli). than the other way around.

i've also noticed an incredible amount of "i will be called an anti semite"....which usually is stated before the poster posts an incredibly ignorant statement devoid of historical knowledge or even being up to date.

however, i have, after much thought worked out what you are going at:

the double standard: you call it "higher expectations"....us israelis/jews dont understand that. Higher expectations, also means there is a "lower expectations"....meaning there is 2 types of expectations.....that simply means two standards, anything else is just playing with words....

to many that will reek of anti semitism.....to me (as you pointed it out, you have the same expectations out of the US) its maybe less sinister, i.e. not antisemitism as you define it, (but its still wrong "expecting less" out of certain people), but it will easily be put forth as such.

and it will be used by antisemites in their anti israeli rants...and called out as such.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

see anti semetisim everywhere...some people see palestinain victims everywhere.....i see a parrallel between those two groups

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's where people pull in memes from sources which when examined are extremely non-progressive in agenda. For instance anti-War, a site which people love to try and quote, is owned and effectively run by people intellectually loyal to Pat Robertson, Lew Rockwell and the von Mises organization. Rense, Serendipity, What Really Happened all have featured articles and ideas which originated on places like TBR News, StormFront, David Duke.

It is really sad when you see the patterns of the Protocols being applied time and time again. Mossad and Israel controlling US policy, accusations of Dual Loyalty against Lieberman, Soros (who is not even Jewish), that Jews control Hilary, or that AIPAC controls Congress, etc.

"George Soros is one of the few characters from the world of finance who deserves to be called larger-than-life. Born in Hungary of Jewish parents, he and his family narrowly escaped the Holocaust."

link:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_09/b3772027.htm

In essence, he may be ethnically Jewish, he however, chooses not to follow the Jewish faith.

But the real question is this. Does it really matter? To make the claims against him, is still a form of Anti-Semitism.

L-

It does not affect the main point of the accusation of Dual Loyalty which is what I was talking about. Quibbling the aside does nothing to dispute the main point as it being right or wrong has no effect.

L-

voice for peace. Although he is certainly a Zionist and a of course a supporter of Israel, his support includes a fair degree of criticism of both Israeli policy and the Bush Administration's almost unqualified support of Israeli policy.

Soros on the Consequences of the War on Terror -- link:

http://www.nationalpeace.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/3506

In fact hardline Zionist groups have strongly attacked Mr. Soros for his work for peace in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

I was not referring to anything in the conversation.

In this case it might have been mere detail, but in a
hypothetical conversation about self-hating Jews for example,
the fact that Soros is Jewish could mean a lot.

Sorry for the confusion.

Hypersensitivity, avoidance, cherry-picking and of course ignorance (with a fair amount of it willful) are abundantly in existance.

But that is not the main point of this thread which is talking about perceived anti-Semitism among the Left. I raised those points up because no where had I seen them raised up by anyone else in this thread and given that the article was discussing anti-Semitism amongst the Left, I felt it informational to add what I felt was one of the main examples I've personally had to deal with over the years.

Do I think it is synonymous with the Progressive movement? No, of course not. But I think there are a few people who in their attempt to turn this into a black-hat/white-hat issue are using tools and ideas from the extreme-RW hate groups who in turn are doing everything in their power to mainstream their hateful agendas.

L-

nonsense called the "religion of scientism" on the left.

The guy can't seemingly get through a single press release without taking potshots at "atheist materialists" and whining about how religious people on the left are horribly marginalized and oppressed; you know, not permitted to pray at peace marches and whatnot. :eyes:

If you ask me, the progressive Jewish community could find far more intelligent voices to represent itself than that doorknob.

It's unfortunate that anytime anyone criticises Israel or it's actions or policies, they get tagged with the anti-semitic label. Witness the recent controversy involving President Carter.

I have zero tolerance for actual anti-semitism. But criticising Israel is a legitimate point of view and whether one agrees or disagrees with the statement being put forth, it's not inherently anti-semitic.

http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?issue=01-26-07&storyID=26190
Scroll to the bottom of this webpage.

ADL CONFERENCE

Editors, Daily Planet:

I couldn’t agree more with Tami Holzman of the Anti-Defamation League ( Letters , Jan. 12) that anti-Semitism is a serious and growing problem. Yet I believe the conference she plugs as a remedy is seriously flawed and that that Holzman is not accurately describing it in her letter.

According to Holzman and the conference website, the conference will address anti-Semitism from a progressive perspective. Yet when one looks at the lengthy list of co-sponsors of the event the most prominent and visible Bay Area progressive Jewish organizations (Jewish Voice for Peace, Tikkun, Progressive Jewish Alliance, and Brit Tzedek) are missing. Instead, the list is dominated by mainstream and right-wing Jewish organizations and groups such as the Blue Star PR and AIPAC, whose primary mission is to support the decidedly unprogressive actions of the Israeli government.

My organization, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), has a strong record of standing up against anti-Semitism in the Middle East peace movement and has published a book called Reframing Anti-Semitism. This book, now in its fourth printing, has been used as a text in university classrooms and has been distributed internationally. My own essay in that book is precisely about anti-Semitism on the Left. Yet the ADL never consulted with us, asked us to co-sponsor, or invited us to present at the conference. (Though one of our activists will be on a panel there, she was invited by a third party, not by one of the conference co-sponsors.)

Holzman claims that the Finding Our Voice conference “is not about Israel.” Yet the keynote speaker is touted as having been instrumental in overturning British boycotts against Israeli universities. Conference workshops include: “Dealing with Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions,” (against Israel, I presume), “The Israel You Don’t Hear About,” “Emphasizing What’s Right in Israel,” “Keeping Blue and White Part of the Rainbow,” etc.

A conference to examine anti-Semitism from a progressive perspective is sorely needed. Yet a truly progressive conference would involve bona-fide progressive organizations in the planning process, and include co-sponsors that strongly oppose Israeli policy, including those that believe sanctions, boycotts and divestment campaigns are a legitimate tool to pressure Israel to end its decades-long occupation. (Perhaps Holzman can explain why “criticizing the decisions and actions of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic,” but backing up these criticisms with non-violent economic or diplomatic pressure is.) A truly progressive conference would examine the connections between anti-Semitism directed at Jews and anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism, and look at how Jews, Arabs and Muslims, can work together to end both oppressions. A truly progressive conference would look critically at the role of U.S. imperialism in fomenting anti-Semitism, would examine the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, when these forces are coming together, and when they are not.

In the meantime, the ADL should not be misleading people into believing that this conference will be something that it is not.

Terry Fletcher

New Israel Fund www.nif.org

Jewish Mosaic www.jewishmosaic.org

Americans for Peace Now www.peacenow.org

Kehilla Community Synagogue www.kehillasynagogue.org/

Congregation Sha'ar Zahav www.shaarzahav.org

Jewish Community Federation LGBT Alliance www.sfjcf.org/groups/lgbt

Jewish Labor Committee www.jewishlaborcommittee.org

Silicon Valley Conference for Community and Justice www.svccj.org

Berkeley Hillel www.berkeleyhillel.org

San Francisco Hillel www.sfhillel.org

Silicon Valley Hillel www.hillelsv.org

Hillel at Davis and Sacramento www.hillelhouse.org

Hillel at Stanford www.hillel.stanford.edu

Congregation Beth Israel-Judea www.bij.org

Jewish Community Center of San Francisco www.jccsf.org

Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley www.jvalley.org

Congregation Beth Am www.betham.org

Institute for Jewish and Community Research www.jewishresearch.org

j. the Jewish News Weekly of Northern California www.jewishsf.org

Jewish Community High School of the Bay www.jchsofthebay.org

Jewish Vocational Service www.jvs.org

Anti-Defamation League www.adl.org

Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa www.jimena.org

Kehillah High School www.kehillah.org

Bridges to Israel - Berkeley www.bridgestoisrael-berkeley.org

Temple Israel of Alameda www.templeisraelalameda.org

Temple Sinai of Oakland www.oaklandsinai.org

Addison-Penzak Jewish Community Center of Silicon Valley www.svjcc.org

Contra Costa JCC www.ccjcc.org

Keddem Congregation www.keddem.org

Holocaust Center of Northern California www.hcnc.org

Temple Beth Abraham www.tbaoakland.org

Osher Marin Jewish Community Center www.marinjcc.org

Peninsula Jewish Community Center www.pjcc.org

The Working Group www.theworkinggroup.org

Facing History and Ourselves www.facinghistory.org

Congregation Beth El www.bethelberkeley.org

Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma counties www.sfjcf.org

Congregation Kol Shofar www.kolshofar.org

B’nai Brith International www.bnaibrith.org

American Israel Public Affairs Committee www.aipac.org

Lehrhaus Judaica www.lehrhaus.org

Congregation Emanu-El www.emanuelsf.org

Santa Clara University Jewish Law Students Association www.scu.edu/law/resources/sba_jlsa.html

BlueStarPR www.bluestarpr.org

Jewish Community Federation of the Greater East Bay www.jfed.org

UC Davis Jewish Law Students Association http://students.law.ucdavis.edu/JLSA/

UC Hastings Jewish Law Students Association http://www.uchastings.edu/?pid=88

Congregation Beth Sholom http://www.bethsholomsf.org/CBS/pages/

Congregation Rodef Shalom www.rodefshalom.org

Shalom Bayit www.shalom-bayit.org

Congregation Sherith Israel www.sherithisrael.org

Hadassah San Francisco www.hadassah.org

From the Caliph to the Ayatollah: Addressing Jewish Life Under Islamic Rule

Peace is Not a Four-Letter Word: How I’ve Made the Peace Movement Inclusive

Opposing the War While Opposing Anti-Semitism

Essentials of the Longest Hatred: An All Too Speedy Overview of Anti-Semitism’s Long History

Surviving and Thriving on the Political Left

Breaking Through the Myth of Jewish Whiteness

Community Activists Respond to Anti-Semitism

Advocacy Against Global Anti-Semitism

A Path to Jewish Self-Esteem

Using Positive Messages to Challenge Hate: Advocacy on the Campus

Crossing The Line—Friendships Across Political, Ethnic, National and Religious Boundaries

On the Spot Responses to Hurtful Language

etc.

And why have prominent Jewish peace groups like those mentioned in the article not been invited, yet the decidedly unprogressive AIPAC are taking a prominent part in it?

Of the 27, Terry Fletcher, in the article posted here, identifies 4 that, in his view, relate to Israel.

One of the 4 is "Keeping Blue and White Part of the Rainbow". It seems to me that this session does not necessarily have anything to do with Israel. Blue and White are the traditional colors of the tallis (prayer shawl) and while they are the colors of the Israeli flag, they are also colors long associated with the Jewish people. Since the groups associated with that session are US based, I do not see any reason to believe that this session is connected to Israel.

Another is “Dealing with Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions”. There are some who view those actions (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions) being taken against Israel but not against countries guilty of similar or worse actions is due to the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, and therefore has an undercurrent of anti-semitism.

To quote former Harvard President Larry Summers: "There is much that should be - indeed that must be - debated regarding Israeli policy. And all views can be, should be and will be expressed by those in academic life.
However, the academic boycott resolution passed by the British professors union in the way that it singles out Israel is in my judgment anti-Semitic in both effect and in intent."

To quote David Hirsch of the Association of University Teachers: "It may not have anti-semitic motivations, but if you organise an academic boycott of Israeli Jewish academics but no one else in the world, that is an anti-semitic policy."

Of course, some disagree with these conclusions.

To quote Prof. Steven Rose, one of the boycott campaign leader: "There is nothing anti-Semitic about putting pressure on Israeli institutors and their academic staff to fight against the illegal and anti-human-rights policies of the Israeli state. "

I am sure there will be progressives at this conference who share Prof. Rose's view so I would think that a discussion among those on the Left who agree with the premise that there is a relationship between such boycotts and anti-semitism and those who reject that premise would be an important and productive one to have.

A third example cited in the article is "The Israel You Don’t Hear About". The full title of that session is "The Israel You Don’t Hear About: Movements for Social Change and Human Rights" and is being hosted by The New Israel Fund.

This group, I would imagine, is attempting to address the arguably anti-semitic undercurrent connected to what some perceive as an exagerrated demonization of Israel vis-a-vis other nations of the world. Some argue that an incomplete picture of Israel is deliberately presented by certain critics whose animosity towards Israel are related to Israel being the only Jewish state.

Again I would expect that some progressives at this conference would not accept this premise and would therefore engage this group in a constructive dialogue. This is a group, after all, that claims to be dedicated to safeguarding human rights.

The fourth citation, "Emphasizing What’s Right in Israel", I think would be another group who believes that Israel is unfairly treated by some in the progressive movement for reasons that may be connected to anti-semitism.

I would emphasize though that these are 3 out of 27 sessions that relate to Israel. I would hope that these sessions would facilitate some difficult conversations among people who have different opinions about the relationship between anti-semitism and cetain types of anti-Israeli rhetoric and activities.

How many times and in how many ways does it need to be explained that there are those whom use criticism of Israel to further their Anti-Semitic (or Anti-Jewish for those that like to split hairs) agenda?

Now read carefully, I am not saying that anyone that criticizes Israel is Anti-Semitic or Anti-Jewish or whatever you're calling it today.

There are hate groups and individuals that hate that use the I/P situation to get their Anti-Semitic rocks off.

That is why any thinking person that would hold this conference would gravitate to a discussion of Anti-Israel rhetoric.

While some people think think the Pro-Israel crowd loves to blur the distinction it is actually used quite effectively by those that are Anti-Jewish.

Granted, I do believe there are right-wing wackos that love to blur the distinction, but one must be careful not to paint all individuals that acknowledge the use of Anti-Israel rhetoric by hate groups as right wing wackos. That would be like calling anyone whom criticizes Israel anti-semitic.

Okay, I shouldn't react to just a title, but this is irresistible. "Breaking Through the Myth of Jewish Whiteness"? In the US?! Variouspeople I know are in for a serious life-reassessment when they realize they've been wandering around all these years mistakenly thinking they were white.

Are Persians also white? Lots of Iranian Jews here where I live. They don't seem to get treated as "white".

Are Palestinians white?

My own ancestry is Moroccan but so mixed I am now "white". But the National Alliance folks who tried to shoot babies at the Jewish Dayschool here don't consider us "white".

Hell, my Jewish girlfriends and I even joke abut how much we spend to get "white girl hair".

It's relative for everyone. What you say applies to almost every group. A certain number of Saxons are dark-complexioned. Lots of apparently light-skinned people do not have "white" culture. It's not just the myth of Jewish whiteness, it's the myth of anyone being white.

At the same time, no one gets a choice about how they "signify" to others and the most significant divide remains that between white and black (defined by the most widespread conditioning as mutually exclusive categories - you're black or you're not, and it's black who by that conditioning get the most crap).

Anyway I shouldn't have gone off on the title, since the content of the seminar may be very different from what I think a title implies.

Some of their goals include:

To help nurture and grow existing Jewish communities of color

To build networks among isolated Jewish groups (and individuals) of color

To build connections between Jews of color and the majority white community

To build connections between Jews and non-Jews of all colors and ethnicities

in the country. Thanks for posting

And it is without honor. It knowingly harrasses and torments innocent people, and has been convicted in courts of law repeatedly for victimizing guiltless people. They are IMHO crackpot zealots, and perfectly fit the definition of a hate group.
And the entire concept of "progressive anti-semitism" is laughable.
It implies that Jews are a distinct semitic race, and that opposition to the policies ofthe Israeli government is equivalent to hatred of Jews.
Does the shameless propaganda NEVER stop? We are drenched in this hateful, sick drek constantly. It's relentless and tiresomely ubiquitous.

ADL Condemns Guilford College Hate Crime

ADL Urges Senate and House Armed Services Committees to Hold Hearings On Religious Coercion In Military

Muslim Family Who Hid 26 Jews in Albania from the Nazis Honored by ADL

ADL Urges Rep. Virgil Goode Jr. To Reconsider Anti-Muslim Remarks

ADL Statement on Dennis Prager's Attack On Muslim Congressman for Taking Oath of Office on Koran

ADL Welcomes House Rejection Of Same-Sex Marriage Amendment

ADL Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Reject Government Display of the Ten Commandments as Unconstitutional

ADL Welcomes Supreme Court Decision That All U.S. Detainees Are Entitled To Due Process

ADL Hails Supreme Court Decision Overturning Texas Sodomy Law



Need I go on?

although I do agree that they are progressive on many other issues

They try to protect the Jewish community from hate crimes and hate groups.

But God Bless you, just go ahead and believe whatever you want.

what critics they have managed to silence?

Thank you.

http://www.forward.com/articles/adl-causes-stir/

Berlusconi's party is explicitly identified as a fascist party.

The sharpest reaction to Berlusconi’s insensitivity came from the Italian Jewish community.

Amos Luzzatto, president of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities, has said repeatedly that Berlusconi’s comments caused him “profound pain.” Even after Berlusconi met with Luzzatto at a Rome synagogue to apologize, Luzzatto said to the press that “he has apologized to us and specifically to me, but not to the Italian people.”

Luzzatto, however, declined to explicitly criticize the ADL. Through a spokesman, Luzzatto told the Forward that “the Italian Jewry should not enter into the decisions of foreign Jewish organizations.”

Luzzatto did not attend the ceremony in New York, but he did send a representative of the union.

A past president of the union, Tullia Zevi, was more outspoken in her criticism of the ADL and Foxman. Zevi immediately called Foxman to complain when she heard about the planned ceremony. “I suggested that he postpone it,” Zevi said. “To celebrate a man who has said these things is insulting the memory of these people who suffered under these times.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4265360,00.html

Thursday September 27, 2001

Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, yesterday went out of his way to stress what every other leader backing America's "war on terrorism" has been desperate to deny - that the looming conflict is, at bottom, a clash of civilisations.

On three occasions during a lightning visit to Berlin, Mr Berlusconi enthusiastically proclaimed views that will appal western leaders and be seen by many Muslims as confirming their worst suspicions. He boasted of the "supremacy" and "superiority" of western civilisation and called on Europe to recognise its "common Christian roots".

The Italian prime minister, who has been under pressure over the handling of demonstrations at this year's G8 summit in Genoa, also used his trip to claim a link between Islamist terrorism and the anti-globalisation movement. He said there was a "strange unanimity" between them.

Both, said Mr Berlusconi, were the enemies of western civilisation.

say incredibly stupid things?

No, of course i don't think the US has the only leaders that say stupid things.

After all, Reagan said that the Nazi criminals buried at Bitburg were "victims" of the Nazis too. Despite the fact that the were elite leaders. Among those buried there were 49 Waffen SS soldiers, elite Nazi leaders (these weren't draftees). Reagan said: they were "victims of the Nazis just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps."

Reagan was honored with the torch of liberty from the ADL in 1994.

The context of the conversation is how we might perceive the ADL.

that's their choice.

I think the evidence suggests otherwise.

<snip>

"As a new resident of Arlington who spoke out against having the town sign onto an ADL-sponsored “No Place for Hate” program, I want to explain my reasoning to readers of The Advocate who did not hear my statement (“Process begins for town to become No Place for Hate,” Jan. 18 Advocate).

I identified myself as someone who has been involved throughout my adult life with issues of racism, discrimination and anti-Semitism, but I was speaking primarily as a Jew who learned from an early age about the dangers of keeping silent in the face of injustice. Whatever the Anti Defamation League’s long and proud history as an organization committed to fighting anti-Semitism and other evils, in fact for decades now it has initiated and supported blacklists of speakers, writers, activists and academics who express opinions that differ from its own. This is especially true on issues related to Israel and Palestine, and, although there are frequent and carefully-worded disclaimers, in effect, to Arabs and Muslims more generally.

Surely, I want to live in a town where there is “no place for hate,” but I also want to live in a town where there is “no place for ignorance,” and where there is room and welcome for diverse voices. When I spoke up at a meeting that was otherwise a “love-in” between town officials and representatives of the ADL, I knew there are many Arlington residents who agree with me.

Several of them were in that room. Later that evening and on subsequent occasions, others have thanked us for sharing what we have learned from long and bitter experience with the “other face” of the ADL. A dozen people critical of the plan to adopt an ADL-sponsored program appeared during the public comment period at the subsequent meeting of the Human Rights Commission, 10 of us speaking in opposition to ADL policies and procedures."

more



Opposing the ADL in Andover, MA

<snip>

"In a letter to the editor of the Arlington Advocate, longtime Jewish peace activist Hilda Bernstein Silverman says why she supports a program that says Arlington is no place for hate, but not one sponsored by the ADL:

The ADL was hugely instrumental in trying to stop presentations at Andover High School about conditions of life for Palestinians, an effort that has been presented in detail in Andover-area papers. In a guest commentary, in rather typical ADL fashion, New England Regional Director Andrew Tarsy charged that anyone who complained that Jewish groups and Jewish individuals “are stereotypically flexing their muscles to stifle debate,” is engaged in a “naked appeal to the insidious anti-Semitic canard of Jewish control.” All I could think of was the old story of the person who murders his father and mother and then pleads for mercy based on the fact that he’s an orphan.

In the same paper, professor Elaine Hagopian also talks about the ADL’s ways of suppressing dissent:

The methods used are: pressuring institutions and organizations not to allow critics of Israel to speak in their venues; defaming and demonizing legitimate critics by claiming they are anti-Semites and stating falsely they hold positions calling for the destruction of Israel when those claims are indeed false; monitoring critics of Israel (and various progressive groups); and other techniques.

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=41


http://www.muzzlewatch.com/

Tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy

:thumbsup:

link: http://www.townonline.com/arlington/opinion/8998979919924953067

snip: "While the ADL insists that it has no quarrel with legitimate criticism of the country’s policies, for many of us who know and care a lot about what is happening in that tortured part of the world, it is hard to figure out what criticism would be perceived as “legitimate.” "

snip:"The ADL was hugely instrumental in trying to stop presentations at Andover High School about conditions of life for Palestinians, an effort that has been presented in detail in Andover-area papers. In a guest commentary, in rather typical ADL fashion, New England Regional Director Andrew Tarsy charged that anyone who complained that Jewish groups and Jewish individuals “are stereotypically flexing their muscles to stifle debate,” is engaged in a “naked appeal to the insidious anti-Semitic canard of Jewish control.” All I could think of was the old story of the person who murders his father and mother and then pleads for mercy based on the fact that he’s an orphan.

I would urge the town’s officials and residents to heed the plea of my friend and fellow activist with Jewish Voice for Peace, Howard Lenow, in his conclusion to a letter I read at the open meeting, “Academic freedom and critical thinking should be the lesson for our children, not censorship.”

Hilda Bernstein Silverman

link to full article:

http://www.townonline.com/arlington/opinion/8998979919924953067


.

and as Hilda Berstein Silverman of Jewish Voices for Peace said, "While the ADL insists that it has no quarrel with legitimate criticism of the country’s policies, for many of us who know and care a lot about what is happening in that tortured part of the world, it is hard to figure out what criticism would be perceived as “legitimate.” "

The ADL welcomes your criticism, please fill in the following box with your complaint. Must be double-spaced, and at least a font of 12pts or more. One box may be filled out per person, per lifetime, or we will call you anti-Semitic. Please speak freely, and you may choose to fill the entire box with your criticism, but no more, ever.

http://www.forward.com/articles/dear-john/

John Bolton’s resignation as American ambassador to the United Nations is an important and welcome step in the national healing process that began on Election Day, November 7. Bolton’s presence at the U.N. for the past 15 months, despite the Senate’s refusal to confirm him, has been a daily reminder of the Bush administration’s arrogant, willful style of governance, of its contempt for the meaning of democracy and the separation of powers. Bolton’s performance at the world body, his stubborn flaunting of American exceptionalism, has been a perfect metaphor for this administration’s ideological high-handedness in coping with the problems of the nation and the world.


President Bush, in his decision to resubmit Bolton’s name to the Senate last month despite the clear statement of the national will, as expressed by the voters, managed to demonstrate once again the deep capacity for denial of reality that guides him as a leader. Bolton, at least, had the wisdom to see the midterm election for what it was: a national repudiation of the Bush governing style. His decision to pack his bags is an occasion for a national sigh of relief and even gratitude.
<snip>
It’s no great secret why the Jewish agencies continue to trumpet support for the discredited policies of this failed administration. They see defense of Israel as their number-one goal, trumping all other items on the agenda. That single-mindedness binds them ever closer to a White House that has made combating Islamic terrorism its signature campaign. The campaign’s effects on the world have been catastrophic. But that is no concern of the Jewish agencies. Given the record, the agencies’ paeans to Bolton come as no surprise. And yet, they still offend. Coming barely a month after the midterm elections, in which Jews voted 7-1 against the Bush record, the statements show a communal representative structure working directly against the wishes and values of the community it purports to represent.

That pesky Mossad!

Which is their right. After all, they support Bush's foreign policy, it seems only natural. Republican Clubs around the country also bid a sad farewell to Bolton. perfectly acceptable.

It is also acceptable to dissent from that policy, and celebrate the departure of Bolton.

The ADL Spying Case Is Over,
But The Struggle Continues

By Jeffrey Blankfort, Anne Poirier
and Steve Zeltzer
Plaintiffs in the of ADL Spying Case

In 1993, the District of Attorney of San Francisco released 700 pages of documents implicating the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that claims to be a defender of civil rights, in a vast spying operation directed against American citizens who were opposed to Israel's policies in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza and to the apartheid policies of the government of South Africa and passing on information to both governments.

Under great political pressure, Smith later dropped the charges. One wonders what would have happened had an Arab-American or Muslim organization been caught spying with the names of 10,000 people and 600 organizations in their files.

Not only were critics of Israel under ADL's surveillance,including thousands of Arab-Americans, but labor organizations such as the San Francisco Labor Council, ILWU Local 10, and the Oakland Educational Association, and civil rights groups such as the NAACP, Irish Northern Aid, International Indian Treaty Council and the Asian Law Caucus were also found in the "pinko" files of ADL's undercover operative, Roy Bullock.

http://www.counterpunch.org/adlspying2.html

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
The ADL are irresponsible and have been found guilty in courts of victimizing innocent people by accusing them of anti-semitism.

This is an important subject and needs to be recognized for what it is.

This has become a big problem IMHO and needs to be examined---objectively.

Conversation seems to have moved on to different, off-topic subjects.

Lithos
DU Moderator